CBC not nuanced in its moral equivalence

At issue: CBC.ca has an article that outlines a report from Amnesty International aboutCanada’s changed role as leader on human rights. The headline?

Amnesty slams Canada’s recent rights record

And how does the CBC describe the report?

Canada’s global reputation as a human rights champion has been eroded in recent years, according to a scathing Amnesty International report that doesn’t specifically name Stephen Harper’s Conservatives but raises frequent criticisms of foreign policy under the Tories.

Let’s look at how the CBC has reported other reactions from Amnesty international:

In Mubarek’s Egypt, we see “concern” expressed:

Hafez Abu Seda, president of the Egyptian Organization of Human Rights, said the suspects should be punished for “torture rather than ill treatment, because there is a huge difference.”

Amnesty International expressed concern Monday that witnesses in the trial could be harassed and urged the government to ensure their safety.

And according to the CBC, when else is Amnesty International “scathing” in it’s critique? When Amnesty describes Mexican justice system

Amnesty says it has evidence of Mexicans being tortured into confessing to crimes they didn’t commit. In a scathing assessment of the justice system here, Amnesty claims that those with money get better treatment than those who don’t have any.

When Amnesty describes “war crimes” in the Middle East:

Amnesty International issued a scathing report Thursday accusing Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during a 22-day conflict in the Gaza Strip last December and January.

Stephen Harper’s crime for being “slammed” in a “scathing” report according to the CBC? He defunded Kairos, won’t let Omar Khadr back in Canada, and supports Israel…

Here’s Amnesty’s report on Canada. Would you call it “scathing”? I didn’t read about any torture, domestic military incursion, or human rights abuses by our Canadian government.

Lately, the conversation among a few has been drifting into hyperbole and gross distortions. The last time Michael Ignatieff spoke about “regime change”, he was advocating the invasion of Iraq. Now he suggests we live under a word we’ve come to reserve for the governments of brutal dictators. We see actual human rights abuses in some of the most hopeless parts of the world under the most evil governments. Yet, the moral equivocators of the world speak in nuanced words to please dictators and describe policy discord of a rights organization with Canada’s government in the same tones it reserves (and neglects to use) for the same. Isn’t it about time we got back to our adult conversation?